PUNJAB STATE Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 15th May, 1993, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. By this judgment, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court by which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent joined the service of the Police Department on 18th March, 1963. The respondent remained absent from 4. 00 P. M. on 23rd February, 1986 till 15. 05 P. M. on 24th February, 1986, i. e. he remained absent from duty for a period of 23 hours 5 minutes. For this alleged unauthorised absence the respondent was issued charge sheet and after conducting the departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 30th September, 198c conveyed on 1st October, 1986. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 30th September, 1986 was illegal, void, inoperative, and contrary to the provisions of law and ineffective. The suit was. dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 26th September, 1991. Aggrieved by this judgment, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge held that while passing the impugned order the punishing authority did not take into consideration the claim of the plaintiff for pension and also did not consider the length of service. In view of this, the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the order dated 30th September, 1986 was null and void. It was, however, made clear that the defendant-State could pass fresh order while taking into consideration the fact, on the basis of which the order was declared to be null and void. Against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) MR . Mohinder Singh Gyani learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that the respondent had been absent from duty for a period of only 23 hours and 5 minutes and for that he had given even satisfactory explanation and had also produced the medical certificate which, of course, was issued by a private medical practitioner. He, therefore, contended that the case was fully covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, JT 1996 (2) SC 649.